Scholarlink

<p>Consolidation of preclinical subgingival instrumentation skills during early clinical exposure is poorly quantified, especially after the new German dental licensing regulation (nGDLR). Within a shared digitised training programme (DTP), we compared in vitro performance after preclinical training and after the first periodontal patient course under distributed (oGDLR; 7th semester, S7) versus massed (nGDLR; 6th semester, S6) schedules. In a non-randomised, sequential two-cohort design (a consequence of a 2020 curriculum change), 102 students (oGDLR, distributed/longitudinal schedule, n = 45; nGDLR, massed/block schedule, n = 57) provided 136 evaluations after preclinical DTP (nGDLR S6, oGDLR S7) and/or after the first periodontal patient course (S8). Because oGDLR training (S7) overlapped with first clinical contacts whereas nGDLR training (S6) preceded intensive patient care by ~ 1.5 semesters, schedule density and clinical proximity co-vary and cannot be fully separated. Only 34 students (oGDLR n = 22; nGDLR n = 12) were evaluated at both time points, so most comparisons are cross-sectional. Each student instrumented six teeth with Gracey curettes (GRA) and a sonic scaler (AIR) on periodontitis manikins. Effectiveness of simulated plaque removal (ESP), treatment time, calculus removal and an 8-item Likert self-assessment were analysed by non-parametric tests and multivariable regression with cluster-robust SE. oGDLR was associated with higher ESP (β=+5.16%, p = 0.001) and twofold higher calculus removal (adjusted OR 2.00, p &lt; 0.001); treatment time was comparable. From post-DTP to S8 both cohorts became faster by ~ 60s/tooth (p &lt; 0.001) while ESP declined (β=−4.26%, p = 0.002) — a speed–accuracy trade-off; the schedule×time interaction was non-significant. In the paired subgroup, the trade-off was confirmed in oGDLR (n = 22; ESP − 7.2%, p &lt; 0.001) but power-limited in nGDLR (n = 12). Excluding magnifying-loupe users (concentrated in nGDLR) widened rather than narrowed the oGDLR ESP advantage (β=+6.02%, p &lt; 0.001). nGDLR rated AIR more favourably (learnability OR 0.40; effectiveness OR 0.48). Pass rates (≥ 55% ESP) exceeded 86%. In this non-randomised cohort, the distributed schedule was associated with higher absolute performance, but the decline occurred similarly under both schedules. Because schedule density could not be separated from proximity to clinical exposure, and because the data are largely cross-sectional and derive from a manikin-based in vitro model, these associations should not be read as causal. The transition to first patient care is vulnerable: cleaning quality may erode as students prioritise speed. Distributed preclinical practice was associated with a higher absolute baseline, but the decline across the transition was similar in both schedules; structured reinforcement during the early clinical phase remains necessary to consolidate competence. </p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Effect of massed versus distributed preclinical training on subgingival instrumentation skill across the preclinical-to-clinical transition

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月27日

查看全文
  • Laura Glevitzky,
  • Miriam Cyris,
  • Simone Sutor,
  • Claudia Springer,
  • Maren Kahl,
  • Mohamed Mekhemar,
  • Sonja Sälzer,
  • Christian Graetz

摘要

Consolidation of preclinical subgingival instrumentation skills during early clinical exposure is poorly quantified, especially after the new German dental licensing regulation (nGDLR). Within a shared digitised training programme (DTP), we compared in vitro performance after preclinical training and after the first periodontal patient course under distributed (oGDLR; 7th semester, S7) versus massed (nGDLR; 6th semester, S6) schedules. In a non-randomised, sequential two-cohort design (a consequence of a 2020 curriculum change), 102 students (oGDLR, distributed/longitudinal schedule, n = 45; nGDLR, massed/block schedule, n = 57) provided 136 evaluations after preclinical DTP (nGDLR S6, oGDLR S7) and/or after the first periodontal patient course (S8). Because oGDLR training (S7) overlapped with first clinical contacts whereas nGDLR training (S6) preceded intensive patient care by ~ 1.5 semesters, schedule density and clinical proximity co-vary and cannot be fully separated. Only 34 students (oGDLR n = 22; nGDLR n = 12) were evaluated at both time points, so most comparisons are cross-sectional. Each student instrumented six teeth with Gracey curettes (GRA) and a sonic scaler (AIR) on periodontitis manikins. Effectiveness of simulated plaque removal (ESP), treatment time, calculus removal and an 8-item Likert self-assessment were analysed by non-parametric tests and multivariable regression with cluster-robust SE. oGDLR was associated with higher ESP (β=+5.16%, p = 0.001) and twofold higher calculus removal (adjusted OR 2.00, p < 0.001); treatment time was comparable. From post-DTP to S8 both cohorts became faster by ~ 60s/tooth (p < 0.001) while ESP declined (β=−4.26%, p = 0.002) — a speed–accuracy trade-off; the schedule×time interaction was non-significant. In the paired subgroup, the trade-off was confirmed in oGDLR (n = 22; ESP − 7.2%, p < 0.001) but power-limited in nGDLR (n = 12). Excluding magnifying-loupe users (concentrated in nGDLR) widened rather than narrowed the oGDLR ESP advantage (β=+6.02%, p < 0.001). nGDLR rated AIR more favourably (learnability OR 0.40; effectiveness OR 0.48). Pass rates (≥ 55% ESP) exceeded 86%. In this non-randomised cohort, the distributed schedule was associated with higher absolute performance, but the decline occurred similarly under both schedules. Because schedule density could not be separated from proximity to clinical exposure, and because the data are largely cross-sectional and derive from a manikin-based in vitro model, these associations should not be read as causal. The transition to first patient care is vulnerable: cleaning quality may erode as students prioritise speed. Distributed preclinical practice was associated with a higher absolute baseline, but the decline across the transition was similar in both schedules; structured reinforcement during the early clinical phase remains necessary to consolidate competence.